2/4 A JOURNEY THROUGH THE SENSES
Art cannot be a perfect replica of reality, on account of the foundational reason that reality cannot be grasped, whereas art is tangible through the materialised art object. The art object is a synthetised materialisation of the sensitivity – and therefore creativity - of the artist in relation to the lived experience subject to physical constraints, and through the lens of their technique. Such work unfolds into architecture, sculpture, painting, music, literature, dance or film. The discovery of the art object by the viewer involves stimulating both hearing and sight. The exterior becomes the interior mainly through two out of five types of exterior opening. One might wonder why only two of the five senses seem to be involved in the artistic experience. Are vision and hearing the noblest senses insofar as they are the only ones involved in the artistic experience? Or can one envision another classification of art that would involve what I would call the missing senses - touch, smell and taste? The aim of this chapter is to explore our relationship with our senses as part of the artistic experience - a journey towards rediscovering the openings in our home.
The incommensurable potentiality of art on the human experience starts by the simple engagement of one’s senses – usually the hearing and the sight - by external stimuli. The investigation of a prospective new classification of art which involve the missing senses should start by the observation of some kind of outstanding sensorial stimulation. Let’s examine the example of a fine dining tasting menu. This type of culinary experience calls on the genius of a chef who has a deep understanding of our sense of taste. They create an intimate, personalised experience for each guest that takes them on a gustatory journey. An exceptional tasting menu can awaken deep memories and move those who experience it - Proust's madeleine being an example of such emotional journeys. A tasting menu is an experience of technical discovery, which has the potential to stir the senses to the point of moving the taster. I would say that a remarkable culinary experience takes the taster into a specific and unique mental space. This phenomenon bears resemblance to the characteristics of a successful exhibition experience.
From this point of view, we need to draw a line between bistronomy and gastronomy. The former is linked to artisanal practices, while the latter would belong to the world of art. It could be said that gastronomy cannot be described as art, since it is a repetitive and ephemeral experience. Nevertheless, contemporary art pushes back the boundaries of traditional conventions linked to the immutability, fixity and universality of the work of art. For example, "Take me (I'm yours)" exhibition that took place at the Monnaie de Paris in 2015 was inherently changeable, unique to each viewer, duplicable, malleable and ephemeral. Each visitor was encouraged to touch and take artworks from the exhibition. Feliz-Gozales Torres' work is one remarkable example of the contemporaneity of this exhibition. His sculpture becomes one only when the visitor picks up a poster from a pile, subjecting the sculpture to constant change. The sculpture realises its potential when it interacts with viewers, in the same way that a meal would be fully appreciated when consumed. Consequently, from the “spectator's” point of view, gastronomy encompasses many similarities with the acclaimed artistic experience. Yet, gastronomy is not celebrated as a stricto sensu art form. And yet, at this stage of the analysis, I would not describe the gastronomic experience as one that could lead to the phenomenon of the Object of Possession that was defined as a criterion for a well-defined piece of art.
At this point of our journey, one could either take this observation as status-quo of contemporary art and construct a reflection that leads us to such conclusion – which is that gastronomy or any experience/piece that relies on the missing senses cannot be considered as a work of art – or observe this as the result of what collective imagination considers being a work of art. The collective imagination is here the set of thoughts and conceptions which are intrinsically linked to culture, education and religion. The collective imagination corresponds to our preconception of the house organization and the way one should and would interact with it. If we rely on the MAH, this would entail that some of the house openings to the outside world cannot let some kind of information – here artistic inputs – to enter the house for the only reasons that “this is how things should work” (our status quo).
I would argue that to some extent a window could be used as a door, an attic vent could let some lights to come in and ivy could grow in a chimney. Our house openings are not partitioned to certain types of usage even though we are socially confined in using them in a specific manner as a result of shared habits. The physical stimulation of one of our senses is not confined to this specific sense – and art has the potentiality to move one’s sensory perception patterns. The first time I consciously realized the ability of art to stimulate a sense through the simulation of another sense was when I attended Maria Bartuszova’s exhibition at the Tate modern in 2022. I was deeply fascinated by her hypnotizing ability to share her sensitivity to the world. One of her works made a particular impression on me. She organised a workshop a group of visually impaired people during which she observed their appreciation of her sculpture. They have a distinctive appreciation of touch, as it is one of their main gateways to the outside world - their touch in a way replaces my relationship with sight. I was fascinated by how they engaged with these sculptures made of aluminum. This material which appears at first glance, cold, distant and impervious, suddenly presented itself in a new light when I looked at the picture of a child resting her head against the sculpture. The freshness of the piece of art, coupled with its rounded, continuous curves, offered a sense of calm. Through the photograph of the sensory - and therefore intimate - appropriation leading to an appreciation of a structure, I could feel the freshness of what it exuded. From the sight, I felt the touch, and from the touch I felt a sense of calm and soothing. It was one of the first times I would experience the decompartmentalisation of my senses through the perception of the other, materialised in a work of contemporary art. Our senses do not stand as partitioned and frozen since – I do believe – that they are capable, almost in a mystical way, to communicate with one another.
The phenomenon of decompartmentalisation of our senses that can be enabled through the experience of art do not manifest itself in an instantaneous manner – I see and suddenly I can feel the sense of freshness. In fact, the tactile experience felt when I was looking at this picture emulates itself from the deliberate act of understanding, leading to the projection of my own senses. I looked at the experience captured in the picture, discovered under a new shadow the way the sculpture was sensorially appreciated, projected myself in the experience as if it was directly experience by the self and as a result felt a sense of touch. I see, I apprehend and therefore I feel a sense of freshness. The apprehension, here, can be broken down into two phenomena: the appropriation and the humanization. The appropriation is the act of intellectualising the art object in order to make it one's own, so that it takes up residence in the MAH by supporting, questioning or challenging its organisation. The humanisation refers to the act of adding a layer of one’s humanity into the understanding of the piece of art which enables one to connect with the object by creating a sense of compassion. This allows one to project themselves into a given work of art. The decompartmentalisation of our senses here can only be enabled by the deliberate effort of the self to understand the art work through the prism of their humanity.
The work of art has the potential to shift one’s relationship to their own senses as it can stimulate them in an unconventional manner to the extent that they can communicate with one another. Yet, the missing senses are not commonly used as the main gateways for the art appreciation and such stimulation is only a subjective experimentation of art that does not involve any external physical stimuli. A lacuna or missing piece stands between the physical stimulation of one’s senses and the art experience. The intellectualisation of the art object mentioned above appears as one of the elements lacking in our analysis. But the discovery through the senses coupled with the act of intellectualising the object does not stand as a sufficient phenomenon for the appreciation of an art object. Indeed, one can look at an advertisement, understand the message conveyed but it does not lead to an experimentation of art. So, is there anything else that would contribute to stirring one from a prosaic belonging to the everyday life to the elevation of the self through the art experience? Is there anything else at the kernel of the object of possession phenomenon?
Picture taken during Maria Bartuszovà's exhibition at the Tate Modern, London, 2022.